Estate of Leonard v. Barnes

California Supreme Court May 17, 1934 No. L. A. 14530Published

Before: Shenk

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that the probate court's finding that the decedent did not intend the name in the exordium clause to serve as an executing signature was supported by the evidence and therefore affirmed the denial of probate.

Issues

Whether the decedent's name appearing in the exordium clause of a holographic document was intended as an executing signature.
Whether the probate court's findings regarding the lack of testamentary intent and execution were supported by the evidence.

Disposition. affirmed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“The probate court found that the instrument was not signed by Mary L. Leonard so as to constitute it a last will and testament.”

“the fact that it was intended as an executing signature must satisfactorily appear on the face of the document itself.”

“The order is affirmed.”

SHENK, J.

The appeal herein is taken by some of the heirs at law and next of kin of Mary L. Leonard from an order denying admission to probate of a document claimed to be the holographic will of the decedent. The document was entirely written and dated by the hand of the decedent.

[9]

Objection to its admission was made on the ground that it was not executed in accordance 'with legal requirements, in that it was not signed by the decedent.

The instrument is dated “May 20 1929”. It commences in the following manner:

“In the name of God I

Mary L. Leonard

Los Angeles Calif at the age of 70 years and being of sound and disposing mind and memory.”

It bequeaths $2,000 for a monument for her mother’s grave and her own. It states that $5 is given to each of her brothers and sisters and the children of deceased brothers and sisters, and no more. It then recounts in detail her reasons for giving no more to those relatives; mentions hurts and heartaches; that she had given thousands of dollars to certain of them and real property to others and had not been appreciated, but that she had been turned out. The instrument provides that the entire estate is to go to erect a home for aged couples and makes certain restrictions as to its use and as to the qualifications of those who shall be ad: mitted. She appoints a niece, Loretta G. Neilson, one. of the appellants, as the executrix to act without bonds and forbids her to employ one of the decedent’s brothers, W. R. Barnes, as her attorney. It then states some of the facts relating to a controversy with her brother Ed Barnes, which resulted in a suit by the brother against her. The last words and punctuation in the instrument are “We had our suit and he got licked-”, No signature appears at the end of the instrument. It is also apparent from the instrument that the year of the date had been changed from 1922 to 1929. The decedent died on December 28, 1932, at the age of about 76 years.

The probate court found that the instrument was not signed by Mary L. Leonard so as to constitute it a last will and testament. The court found further that the decedent’s name appearing at the top was

Estate of Leonard v. Barnes

AI Brief

SHENK, J.

More from California Supreme Court

Related research

AI Brief